‘What’ and ‘How’ to Measure in Allergy and Clinical Immunology: A Systematic Review of Core Outcome Sets and Outcome Harmonisation Processes

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity in outcome reporting and inconsistent use of outcome measurement instruments in allergy and clinical immunology research affects the comparability, synthesis, and clinical applicability of study findings. Harmonisation efforts, particularly Core Outcome Set (COS) development, aim to address these challenges by establishing standardised, evidence-based and consensus-driven outcome recommendations. This systematic review aims to map available COS and other harmonisation processes (HP) in allergy and clinical immunology, evaluate their methodological approaches, and assess their alignment with established development standards. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the COMET Initiative database until June 7, 2024 to identify COS and HP. We included studies if they provided recommendations on 'core' outcomes and/or outcome measurement instruments. Data extraction included disease focus, methodological approach, stakeholder involvement, and adherence to the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development criteria. We synthesised the data at the initiative (process) level rather than the publication level because harmonisation initiatives are frequently iterative and reported across multiple papers (e.g., protocol, Delphi rounds, consensus statement, and subsequent instrument-selection outputs). RESULTS: A total of 15,612 records were identified, with 44 studies (representing 22 initiatives both finished and in development) meeting inclusion criteria. The majority of initiatives focused on asthma (n = 9), followed by eczema (atopic dermatitis n = 2; hand eczema = 1; eczema = 1), urticaria (n = 2), allergic rhinitis (n = 2), chronic rhinosinusitis (n = 1), celiac disease (n = 1), Immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergy (n = 1), eosinophilic esophagitis (n = 1), and hereditary angioedema (n = 1). No COS or HP addressed drug allergy, anaphylaxis, or other immune-mediated allergic conditions. 'Quality of life' was consistently included in all COS with 'signs and symptoms', 'exacerbations' and 'disease control' frequently selected as well. Methodological approaches to COS development varied widely, with most employing Delphi surveys, consensus meetings, and stakeholder involvement, though levels of engagement differed. COS developers inconsistently adhered to Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development criteria, with some initiatives demonstrating rigorous methodology while others lacked transparency in key developmental steps. CONCLUSION: This review highlights growing efforts to harmonise outcome assessment in allergy and clinical immunology. Major gaps remain in coverage and methodological rigour. Quality of life and patient-reported symptoms are frequently recommended outcomes, yet definitions and measurement tools are inconsistent. Strengthening methodological consistency and expanding COS development to neglected areas are critical next steps to improve outcome reliability and comparability in the field.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Clinical & Experimental Allergy
Published
2026-04-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/cea.70251
Primary Topic
Delphi Technique in Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

‘What’ and ‘How’ to Measure in Allergy and Clinical Immunology: A Systematic Review of Core Outcome Sets and Outcome Harmonisation Processes

Rebecca Knibb, Erna Botjes, Christina Jones, Mattia Giovannini et al.
Clinical & Experimental Allergy
Delphi Technique in Research
article

‘What’ and ‘How’ to Measure in Allergy and Clinical Immunology: A Systematic Review of Core Outcome Sets and Outcome Harmonisation Processes

Rebecca Knibb, Erna Botjes, Christina Jones, Mattia Giovannini, Nikolina Banjanin, Ігор Матковський, Pablo Rodríguez del Río, D Mijakoski, Matthew Greenhawt, Pasquale Comberiati, Isabel Mafra, Cevdet Özdemir, Karl Philipp Drewitz, Julia Upton, Anastasia Demidova, A. I. Asmanov, A Malby Schoos, Sasho Stoleski, Jennifer L. P. Protudjer, A. Yu. Nurtazinа, Christian Apfelbacher, Willem van de Veen, Jon Genuneit, Ekaterina Khaleva, Derek K. Chu, Diego Giampietro Peroni, Douglas P. Mack, Mary Jane Marchisotto, Svetlana A. Konchina, Kristina R. Jamalyan, E. A. Elmurzaeva, Audrey Dunn Galvin, A. Schöpfer, A.R. Nurmeeva, Michelle M. Epstein, Daniel Munblit, Y. Leshem, Mehrshad Ebrahimnejad, Kristine Purtskhvanidze, Joana Costa, Robert J. Boyle, Nata Kiknavelidze, Siuzanna Davtian, Lyudmila Fedorova, Elvina Alieva
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity in outcome reporting and inconsistent use of outcome measurement instruments in allergy and clinical immunology research affects the comparability, synthesis, and clinical applicability of study findings. Harmonisation efforts, particularly Core Outcome Set (COS) development, aim to address these challenges by establishing standardised, evidence-based and consensus-driven outcome recommendations. This systematic review aims to map available COS and other harmonisation processes (HP) in allergy and clinical immunology, evaluate their methodological approaches, and assess their alignment with established development standards. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the COMET Initiative database until June 7, 2024 to identify COS and HP. We included studies if they provided recommendations on 'core' outcomes and/or outcome measurement instruments. Data extraction included disease focus, methodological approach, stakeholder involvement, and adherence to the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development criteria. We synthesised the data at the initiative (process) level rather than the publication level because harmonisation initiatives are frequently iterative and reported across multiple papers (e.g., protocol, Delphi rounds, consensus statement, and subsequent instrument-selection outputs). RESULTS: A total of 15,612 records were identified, with 44 studies (representing 22 initiatives both finished and in development) meeting inclusion criteria. The majority of initiatives focused on asthma (n = 9), followed by eczema (atopic dermatitis n = 2; hand eczema = 1; eczema = 1), urticaria (n = 2), allergic rhinitis (n = 2), chronic rhinosinusitis (n = 1), celiac disease (n = 1), Immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergy (n = 1), eosinophilic esophagitis (n = 1), and hereditary angioedema (n = 1). No COS or HP addressed drug allergy, anaphylaxis, or other immune-mediated allergic conditions. 'Quality of life' was consistently included in all COS with 'signs and symptoms', 'exacerbations' and 'disease control' frequently selected as well. Methodological approaches to COS development varied widely, with most employing Delphi surveys, consensus meetings, and stakeholder involvement, though levels of engagement differed. COS developers inconsistently adhered to Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development criteria, with some initiatives demonstrating rigorous methodology while others lacked transparency in key developmental steps. CONCLUSION: This review highlights growing efforts to harmonise outcome assessment in allergy and clinical immunology. Major gaps remain in coverage and methodological rigour. Quality of life and patient-reported symptoms are frequently recommended outcomes, yet definitions and measurement tools are inconsistent. Strengthening methodological consistency and expanding COS development to neglected areas are critical next steps to improve outcome reliability and comparability in the field.

Clinical & Experimental AllergyVol. 56(5)
University of Pisa (IT), Tel Aviv University (IL), Aston University (GB), Sechenov University (RU), King's College London (GB), University of Zurich (CH), University College Cork (IE), Rabin Medical Center (IL), Florence Nightingale Foundation (GB), Hospital for Sick Children (CA), Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ES), Hvidovre Hospital (DK), Karolinska Institutet (SE), University of Surrey (GB), Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University (RU), University of Belgrade (RS), Children's Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba (CA), Children's Hospital Colorado (US), ENT and Allergy (US), Limassol General Hospital (CY), Hospital Infantil Universitario Niño Jesús (ES), Slagelse Hospital (DK), Meyer Children's Hospital (IT), Copenhagen Prospective Studies on Asthma in Childhood (DK), Hospital Universitario de La Princesa (ES), Institute of public health of Republic of Macedonia (MK), Rede de Química e Tecnologia (PT), Allergan (Switzerland) (CH), Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IT), University of Southampton (GB), University of Florence (IT), University of Manitoba (CA), Imperial College London (GB), Medical University of Vienna (AT), Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje (MK), Tbilisi State Medical University (GE), University of Health Sciences Antigua (AG), University of Colorado Denver (US), Leipzig University (DE), Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg (DE), McMaster University (CA), National Academy of Sciences of Armenia (AM)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 23%
Delphi Technique in Research
DOIOpen Access PDFOpenAlex
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.